Appeal No. 2006-0832 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/155,253
part of the examiner in concluding that the appealed claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention within the meaning of
§ 103(a). Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s obviousness
rejection for substantially the reasons set forth in the answer
and as further emphasized below.
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. Thus, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall
decide this appeal.
Appellant does not quibble with the examiner’s well-founded
determination that Parker discloses a printed battery, including
inter alia, a flexible substrate or backing sheet, a first
contact (conductive) layer (24), an anode (electrode) layer (26),
a cathode (electrode) layer (30), and a contact (conductive)
layer 32. See column 4, lines 23-57 and drawing figure 2 of
Parker.
That disclosure of Parker corresponds with the battery
called for in representative appealed claim 1 but for explicitly
describing particle sizes for the active material of first and
second electrode layers thereof, as recited in representative
claim 1. However, the examiner correctly notes that Parker
(column 5, lines 4-7) teaches that each of those layers of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007